Marital Obligations

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I didn’t mean for it to come across that way. Sorry if it did. I’ve just participated in so many threads where the husband demands sex when his wife has very good reasons to say no—just given birth, afraid of another pregnancy after several NFP failures—and men justifying pornography because men have needs that women don’t understand.

No, I know. It’s just sad that “don’t demand sex from your spouse like a mob boss collecting a debt.” is a controversial statement.

 

[Newhills]

I’ve just participated in so many threads where the husband demands sex when his wife has very good reasons to say no—just given birth, afraid of another pregnancy after several NFP failures—and men justifying pornography because men have needs that women don’t understand.

I haven’t personally seen those threads… any of the men saying those things need to wake up to themselves.

I’m a man.

 

[poche]

I would suggest that the whole idea of marital dept is not a good one. One person should wait for the other spouse to get well before asking them for relations. In fact I think your relationship would get stronger if while your spouse was ill would bring flowers, candy, small gifts that would be a show of love.
Then when your spouse gets better they may be more inclined to please you.

 

[FellFromGrace]

Religion aside, that’s just wrong… I don’t know if this is actually something that goes on in your home, and it’s really not any of my, or the internet’s business but if one spouse isn’t feeling well, the other should be considerate, no questions asked…

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

No… I think you will not understand the point without getting a firm grip on the anthropology which underlies the traditional and constant Catholic understanding of the purposes of marriage and sexual activity…

I see. Well, I am not an anthropologist. Perhaps you are right and this would make more sense to me if I were an anthropologist and a Catholic.

And it’s easy to imagine “weird “ scenarios, as you do in your example, but common sense also indicates that spouses sign up to give what the other needs… as long as it’s reasonable…

Yes, I am all for being reasonable. But if two people are being reasonable together, I don’t see why one would need to introduce the terms “obligation” and “debt”. The reason why I suggested a “weird” scenario was because that is the only scenario in which I could imagine the terms “obligation” and “debt” being applicable. The scenario in the OP also sounds pretty weird to me. Why would anybody be talking about “obligation” and “debt” when one of the partners in a marriage is clearly physically incapacitated? But I am not a Catholic and I am not married to a Catholic, so I guess I probably don’t fully understand all the issues involved.

But the idea is that sex should be a loving act, and not a bargaining chip, or to use withholding sex to manipulate your partner.

I do agree with that. I had just never heard it expressed in terms of “obligation” or “debt”. The scenario described in the OP does not describe somebody using as sex a bargaining chip or withholding it to manipulate the other person in the marriage. I don’t think of performing an obligation or paying a debt as things that I would do in a loving manner. Put the other way round, I can’t see anything loving about something that is done as an obligation or to pay a debt. I guess if I were to become a Catholic all this would be explained to me and I would perhaps develop a different outlook, but I doubt it. As I have said before, it seems that this topic is contentious for Catholics.

It doesn’t and this thread is in poor taste. I’m not even sure if the question is serious.

Thanks. This is what confuses me. About half the responses seem to be saying, “Don’t even worry about this, this has nothing to do with Catholicism, it’s a twisted interpretation of what the Church teaches”, and the other half seem to be saying, “This is a real thing, but you wouldn’t understand it if you don’t have a Catholic understanding of marriage and sex”.

If I do takes further steps towards becoming a Catholic, which at this stage is by no means certain, I’ll be sure to enquire about this, perhaps from one of those married deacons I have read about (or even a married priest, of whom there are apparently quite a few in England).

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Yes, I am all for being reasonable. But if two people are being reasonable together, I don’t see why one would need to introduce the terms “obligation” and “debt”.

These are terms that moral theologians used in academic writing. This is not the way 99.9999999% of ordinary Catholics think about sex or discuss it within their marriages.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I had just never heard it expressed in terms of “obligation” or “debt”

Haha yeah, most people haven’t.
It’s sort of a canon law legalese.
It supposed just mean that a spouse has a reasonable expectation of sex at some time (although the specifics aren’t at all set in stone)

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

These are terms that moral theologians used in academic writing.

It’s sort of a canon law legalese.

Aha. Okay. So it’s like when lawyers use the term “repugnant”, e.g. “This will be a little more complicated, as your father’s will is repugnant”, or, “I think we could persuasively argue that clause 12 in your contract was repugnant”. Now, what I would say is that if these terms are specific to theology and canon law, would it not be a good idea if people either avoided using them, placed them in quotation marks, or explained what they mean? I assume I cannot be the only person on this site who is not a trained theologian or canon lawyer… E.g., you wouldn’t say, “Your father left 100% of his estate to the Royal British Legion and 50% to you? That’s repugnant!” You’d say, “Your father left 100% of his estate to the Royal British Legion and 50% to you? Clearly those two bequests are inconsistent with each other. In legal jargon, we’d say that his will was ‘repugnant’, which I appreciate is a rather peculiar term.” Anyway, I guess I am an outsider here, so perhaps it’s not unreasonable for Catholics to use these terms among themselves, provided everyone understands what they mean.

 

[Glennon_P]

provided everyone understands what they mean

Good analysis. And welcome to the forum.

Lifelong Catholic here…I’m not sure that the “marital debt” will ever reach a point where everyone understands what it means.

 

[kapp19]

Look, it’s a pretty basic idea… when you marry someone you sign up for access to each other in a hundred ways, one of which is this… I suppose the foil is, “I just don’t feel like having relations with you right now,” the reply being, “I really need it… it’s all I can think about right now.” The refusal would then be immoral.

This is not the OP’s question… which I think has been answered…

There are a thousand reasons to become a Catholic… the integrity of doctrine, the miracles, the mystical tradition; this is certainly nothing worth worrying about.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

The refusal would then be immoral.

No it wouldn’t. Insisting would be immoral. What psycho wants to have sex with someone they know isn’t into it? That would essentially being using your spouse as an object or a sex toy.

 

[F_Marturana]

I really need it… it’s all I can think about right now

That’s not what a spouse is for in my humble opinion. It sounds like a demand and sounds like putting the onus on the spouse.

Couldn’t it be phrased a little better at least?

“My heart aches for you.” Fewer words, a bit of romance, same idea, spouse seems treasured.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Or better yet: “guess I won’t be having sex tonight. I’m an adult who can control myself, so I guess I’ll offer it up as a small sacrifice and not badger my spouse into sex because I love him/her.”

 

[F_Marturana]

I only use “marital debt” or “marital embrace” embrace here. It makes it less graphic, and for any innocents perusing, discussion of “marital debt” might seem to be about credi card bills and mortgages.

 

[kapp19]

Yes, fine - but it is one of the three basic goods of marriage… So, together with the constant tradition on marital ethics, yes, it’s actually required to be available in this way… obviously, there is a dynamic to work out in a spirit of generosity and personal/social acceptability, but the inclination goes towards the one who is requesting - and strongly so, as St. Thomas insists… To rephrase the rather immoderate critique offered above, what kind of psycho would just say “no I don’t feel like it” (and double down) when this is so fundamental to the office of marriage?

I’m out - and I’m betting the mods are coming soon anyway.

-K

 

[F_Marturana]

Scenario 1.

“My heart aches for you.”

“I’m not up for it.”

“Let’s watch a movie then.”

“Ok I’m tired, though, I might fall asleep.”

That’s fine and normal in a loving couple. Doesn’t seem immoral.

Scenario 2
“My heart aches for you.”

“I’m not up for it”

“Well that’s a sin right there! You better get to confession. You signed up for this. Marital debt! “

Doesn’t seem too loving.

Scenario 3

“My heart aches for you!”

“Get away from me, I’m watching tv, you’re always bothering me!”

Not a loving response either.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

To rephrase the rather immoderate critique offered above, what kind of psycho would just say “no I don’t feel like it” (and double down) when this is so fundamental to the office of marriage?

Normal human beings everywhere. People are allowed to “not be in the mood” sometimes. The person feeling aroused is still an adult who should be capable of controlling themselves for an evening.

Talk about degrading your spouse. “I know you’re not in the mood, but I am, so I’m going to use you as a sex toy to gratify myself”

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

cenario 3

“My heart aches for you!”

“Get away from me, I’m watching tv, you’re always bothering me!”

Not a loving response either.

Sure, but that’s just a question of delivery. The spouse saying “no thanks” should still do so in a gracious, loving way. “I’m not really in the mood tonight, sweetheart, maybe tomorrow?”

 

[Dolphin]

“I just don’t feel like having relations with you right now,” the reply being, “I really need it… it’s all I can think about right now.” The refusal would then be immoral.

If that’s not using someone for sexual gratification, I don’t know what is.

Literally we are saying here that ‘no doesn’t mean no’ because if you say no to your husband who ‘needs it’ then you are immoral.

Literally justifies marital rape as the wife will not want to ‘sin or be immoral’ and therefore give into the husband. Same thing as saying “sex now or you sin.”

This is sick. This is not Catholic or Christian. And this certainly isn’t bringing the other closer to Christ and dying to oneself for the good of the other.

Sacrificial love dies when sex is demanded on threat of sin.

 

[kapp19]

Well, then you can take it up with Augustine, Thomas, and the whole Catholic tradition on marriage - as if generosity only goes one way. Yikes.

I think all are reading more into the point than is actually being said… Let me try one more time. In brief, to leave your spouse to his or her own devices, “just because I don’t feel like it” in the midst of a bout of concupiscence - when it is more than just “yeah well I feel like it right now” - is unjust and contrary to the marital vocation of the spouse as such… The spouse’s body no longer belongs to him or her alone - the other has a right over it. You’ll find that this is backed up by pretty much every major thinker in the tradition on this point.

I’m happy to take it up in a new thread.

Peace…
-K